Just as I and others in NUS were busy reminding Liberal Democrat MPs of the NUS pledge on tuition fees, another of our key issues came before the house last night, an issue the Liberal Democrats have long championed: Votes at 16.
The ‘Votes at 16′ coalition (of which NUS is a member) was delighted that Natascha Engel MP had agreed to table an amendment to the referendum bill, calling for those 16- and 17-year-olds on the electoral register to be allowed to vote in the referendum.
The arguments for and against lowering the voting age have been rehearsed many times before, but this amendment was calling for something different.
Allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum would have created a temporary opportunity to engage thousands of young people in one of the most fundamental changes to our democracy in decades, a rare chance to give young people a say over the democratic system they will inherit, a chance to measure interest and engagement, and identify the challenges of engaging more young people in politics.
For me it would have been an opportunity to overhaul the image of an apathetic generation. A chance to show that 16- and 17-year-olds who can pay taxes, get married, and join the army are also able to participate in a debate about the way they wish to be represented in the future, a chance to debate how their democracy should be constructed.
This measure would not have been difficult; this was simply an extension of the vote to those on the electoral register. This amendment could have had wider benefits for both the government and opposition. Both are concerned at the alarming number of young people absent from the electoral register, a group whose voice is in danger of being lost if the boundary review continues on its current course. With this amendment we could have seen more young people signing up to the register, as now their presence on the list would lead to a direct action, the chance to cast a vote on electoral reform.
Up and down the country, as you read this post, young people are taking citizenship lessons and participating in AS and A level politics classes. Not all will want a say on the intricacies of a voting system, but why should those who are committed enough to join the register, engaged enough through citizenship lessons to know the vote is taking place, be denied a chance to shape the future of their democracy?
The Liberal Democrats have long championed this cause, being one of the first parties to include ‘Votes at 16′ it in their manifesto. They have repeatedly supported private members bills to push the issue forward, and stood with youth organisations making the case for the extension of the franchise.
But last night that all changed.
Yet again we saw political principles cast aside for coalition convenience.
A chance for hundreds of thousands to cast a vote on the fundamentals of our democracy denied. All because the Liberal Democrats are frightfully trying to keep the Tories to their side of the bargain on the last remaining pledge the Liberal Democrats have — political reform.
It’s been a sobering week to be a young person in politics. One by one we’ve seen commitments and pledges turn into U-turns and broken promises.
Earlier this year I ran the NUS general election and saw thousands of students animated and organised, queuing to exercise their franchise. The task ahead of us is to ensure that abandonment doesn’t lead to disillusionment; that politicians of all hues seek to demonstrate to the next generation that our voices are being heard; and that our interests will be considered.
Failure to do so will almost certainly result in an almighty electoral backlash not yet seen.
some interesting points but a little simplistic. as 16 and 17 year olds need parental consent to get married and join the army, would they need it to vote in this referendum?